27 MAY 1865, Page 5

THE NEWEST WESTBURY SCANDAL.

ACHARGE of jobbery is like horse-radish, which, cut down in one place, instantly sprouts out in half-a-dozen others with renewed vigour. It seems as though there would be quite a crop of Westbury scandals. The Edmunds affair has hardly been hushed up by the Lords before the Commons have commenced a similar inquiry with reference to the re- signation of Mr. Wilde. And one honourable member sug- gested that as there were a great many similar stories about, perhaps it would be as well to instruct the Committee to entertain and dispose of them all at once. The answer was curious—that in that case the Committee would never be able to conclude its investigations. However, whether this be so or not, there are obvious objections to the appointment of a Committee to receive accusations against a public official. There have been times, and may be again, in which such an invitation would have produced false accusations by the score. No man should be compelled to reply to a charge which no Engle member of the House will accept the responsibility of preferring. It is perhaps humiliation enough for the Lord -Chancellor of Great Britain that he has reduced himself to -such a plight that he cannot rely on his character to rebut the -accusations even of Mr. Ferrand. On the other hand, it is fair to say that unless a man's private life is very pure indeed it cannot be pleasant to become the subject of that gentleman's criticism. If he had been allowed to deliver his speech there is no man can tell what we should have heard,—" man is but -a patched fool if he will offer to say what." It is scarcely a reproach to a public official that he shrinks from having every gossiping tale, which malice has invented or exaggerated, detailed for the public amusement in the foaming -eloquence of the member for Devonport. It is enough for the Chancellor to say, " As to the public, I dare stand the test." The extravagant embroidery of falsehood which Mr. Ferrand would have interwoven with his modicum of truth is some- thing which, on every ground, public and private, it is well we should have been spared. And Lord Palmerston never showed his tact and good sense more, than when he silenced the volunteer accuser of his colleague by simply granting him his Committee before he could move for it.

The history of Mr. Wilde's resignation is very short. Since the 11th October, 1861, when Lord Westbury's Bank- ruptcy Act came into force, the official assignees and mes- sengers have been duly paid fixed salaries, and have been bound to pay over their fees, less their payments, to the Chief Registrar's fund. At Leeds there was a staff consist- ing of two commissioners, two registrars, two official assignees, and two messengers, and it was the duty of the registrars to audit the aCCounts of the messengers and official assignees. But at Leeds they were very friendly, and the senior Registrar seems to have been in the habit of testing the friendship of his fellow officials by borrowing money of them, while on two occasions at least the junior Registrar, Mr. Wilde, followed this bad example. The result of all this friendliness will be easily anticipated. The assignees and messengers were duly paid their salaries, but the amount of fees paid over to the Chief Registrar was singularly small. An investigation was ordered, and the accounts were examined by Commissioner Ayrton and Mr. Harding, a London ac- countant. The result was that both assignees were found to have retained certain fees on the ground that the business in respect of which they were received was done before October, 1861,—both had charged more for office expenses than they actually paid, and both had charged for stationery, postage, and petty expenses more than double what they paid. The defalcations of one amounted to 1,3151., and of the other to 1,2041., and this in two years. The two messengers had been more generous in their pickings, and had mulcted the Chief Registrar's fund of something over 1,6001. each, mainly by charging for journeys they never took, and for inventories which if made at all were made by a salaried public servant.

Of course the next question was, how could such accounts have passed the auditors or taxing-masters,—in fact the registrars ? The answer was very simple. The accounts were never taxed at all. A. form was gone through. The accounts were submitted. No vouchers were asked for. The messengers' and assignees' word was always taken as conclusive. Occasionally an item was disallowed, but it was merely for the look of the thing. The senior Registrar frankly admits that " he had confidence in the messenger." The junior, Mr. Wilde, will not go quite so far. He also " placed great con- fidence in the messenger," but he contends also that he " did occasionally ask for vouchers." But the main defence is that he followed the practice of "the senior Court "—" of his old, experienced, and, he may add, sagacious colleague." Besides this colleague had obtained a letter of instructions from the late Taxing-Master of the London Court of Bank- ruptcy, and Mr. Wilde followed that. It is, however, un- fortunate that the letter in question says that the charge for messengers' journeys is only to be allowed when the messenger is expressly directed by the Commissioner to execute the warrant in person. And Mr. Wilde always allowed the charge, not only when the Commissioner had not directed it, but even when the journey had not been made. Of the other charges against Mr. Wilde nothing need be said. They more directly impeached his truthfulness and integrity, but the one we think was certainly not established, and the other, the borrowing of money, when examined sinks into a very petty matter indeed. Both, however, rest on incidents which tend to show that the intimacy between Mr. Wilde and the officers whom he had to check was far too great to permit him to dis- charge his duties properly. There is nothing, we are glad to say, which in our judgment impeaches his honour in these transactions. On the other hand it is, we think, equally clear that he was quite unfit for his post, and this seems to have been the opinion of the Lord Chan- cellor. That great personage, however, tempers justice with mercy. His duty would be to call on Mr. Wilde to appear before him in open Court, and show cause why he should not be dismissed from his office of Registrar, and Lord Westbury seems to have thought that such a " very disgreeable and indeed painful duty " ought not to be " thrust upon him." He therefore directed the Chief Registrar to suggest to Mr. Wilde that though he had not served the twenty years which would entitle him to a pension—indeed he bad only served twelve—and though he was not sixty-five years of age, still he was very poorly, and could doubtless obtain a medical certificate to that effect. The hint was promptly taken. Mr. Wilde petitioned for a full retiring pension of 666/. 13s. 4d., in consequence of " failure in his sight, which had now become so serious that he was no longer able satisfactorily to perform the duties of his office." And ho backed the petition with a certificate from Mr. Samuel Key, F.R.C.S., which is such a gem in its way that we give it at full length.

" Leeds, 28th July, 1864.—I hereby certify that I have been consulted by Mr. Henry S. Wilde on account of a failure in his sight, which was a serious hindrance to him in the per- formance of the duties of his office. Mr. Wilde first consulted me in August, 1863. At his age I cannot look for any im- provement in his vision."

Two days later the Lord Chancellor awarded Mr. Wilde, on account of his infirmity of sight, a full retiring pension of 666/. 13s. 4d., payable quarterly.

So far there is no dispute about the facts of the case. They rest on public documents and Mr. Wilde's own admissions, and we must once again protest against Lord Westbury's views of the use and object of retiring pensions. They are intended to enable public servants, who have served with zeal and fidelity, to live in comfort when disease has crippled their powers or age entitled them to repose. They are not intended to buy off public servants who have served neither with zeal nor fidelity, and still less are they intended to save great officials from having to discharge "disagreeable and even painful duties." Mr. Wilde's honour being nnimpeaohed, he might fairly have been allowed to avoid exposure by resig- nation. To a pension he had no claim whatever, and to bribe him to_resign by the promise of one is a gross dereliction of duty, even on the assumption that it sprang from no worse motive than a dislike to harsh measures. Above and before all other considerations with the Chancellor—the chief Judge in Equity—ought to stand justice. Above all other interests ought to rank the public interest. It is justice of which he never thinks, it is the public interest which he sacrifices. At this moment the taxpayers pay not only 1,0001. to the Leeds Registrar, but 6601. to Mr. Wilde-1,6601. for services which would be amply remunerated by 1,0001.—and all to save Lord Westbury from what is disagreeable. Mr. Wilde does wrong, and the Chancellor fines the public. This, we presume, is the side of his character at which he pointed, when he claimed for himself to have been always actuated throughout his career by Christian love. It was to love that he owned his success in life. But when Mr. Bethell displayed this beautiful virtue the cost doubtless was defrayed out of his own pocket. When the Chancellor indulges it at the expense of the public purse, and so as to facilitate the dropping in of private patronage, his conduct invites charges of corruption, and he has no right to complain if charges of corruption are openly made.

The circumstances of Mr. Ferrand's accusation we have no desire prematurely to discuss. When a man enters on a career of nepotism, the early cases are often comparatively defensible. They pass without protest, and at last he thinks he may do anything. Then something like the Edmunds scandal occurs. It is investigated alone, and considered alone it is impossible to hold that it proves corrupt motives. Then the angry assailants look bank and rake up the last charge but one, but that standing alone, is commonly more defensible than the last. We believe it will prove so in this case. We do not expect that the House of Commons' Committee will be able to make anything of the charge against Lord Westbury. The real head and front of his offending is that he ever appointed his eldest son to any place of trust. That fault might have been forgiven if in all his other appointments ho had been singularly public-spirited. On the contrary, his nepotism has been more open than that of any Chancellor within our recol- lection. With this light thrown on his conduct, it is impossible to believe that the original appointment of the Honourable Richard Bethell was due to mere paternal affection, to a sincere belief in the prodigal's reform. It seems, on the contrary, to indicate a low estimate of morality, and a con- viction that there had been nothing in Mr. Bethell's conduct to disqualify him for an appointment which, if it requires nothing else, requires at least (as this case of Mr. Wilde proves) a stern sense of public duty. But if it is hopeless to try to convict Lord Westbury of nepotism, he escapes neither the shame of the accusation, nor the condemnation of the country, nor even a subtler form of punishment. This very Richard Bothell it is who has involved his father in this second scandal, and as a prominent member of the House of Commons declared with epigrammatic truth the Committee will have only one thing to determine,—whether the Chancellor or his eldest son is telling the truth. Certainly our pleasant vices are made whips to scourge us, and this is what comes of Christian love a la Westbury.